2018 (3) TMI 624

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Appellant Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the respondents are engaged in manufacture of cement and are registered with the Central Excise Department. They availed credit in respect of capital goods used in the mines which are located outside the factory for the period March 2006 to October 2007. Show cause notice was issued prop....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....constitute one integral unit together with the concerned cement factory. They should not be supplying limestone to other cement factories. In the present case, the respondents have been supplying inferior quality limestone excavated from the mines to others, so the said mines cannot be said to be captive mines of the respondent. Therefore, the credit is not admissible. 3. The ld. Counsel Shri S. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....988 permitting them to dispose of the inferior quality limestone to nearby industries. Since the inferior quality limestone may not be of use in the manufacture of cement, the respondent has thus disposed of the waste / rejected limestone to non-cement manufacturers. The Tribunal in the respondent s own case reported in 2013 (295) ELT 713 has considered the very same issue and held that the respon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isposed for further excavation and convenience. Further, the respondent has obtained permission from Government of Tamil Nadu to dispose of the waste / inferior quality limestone to nearby industries. Such a disposal of waste will not make the mines non-captive mines. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed in para 10 of the order that the inferior quality limestone which is not fit for us....